AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVlCE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRAOE

AFSN/SSAN

·	-SRA

RECORD REVIEW
AllllRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

x
x

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX  NUMl! R

x
x
A67.30

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXl IIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
Hl<AIUNG DA n;	CASE NUMBER

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

 	

TO:

SAF/MRHR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE All< FORC!;; Pl'.:RSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE IJISCHA! GE REVIEW BOARD 1'35 COMMAND Ul\, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFll, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FOR.J'\1 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00505	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on November 12, 2009.

The attached brief contains available perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:    The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

After thorough consideration of the information provided by the applicant, the records of the case, and additional information put forward during deliberations, the DRB concluded his discharge was inequitable and there was sufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrading the discharge to honorable. While the Board did not condone the applicant's incidents of misconduct, they did feel his discharge was too harsh and it would have been more equitable to characterized his service as honorable.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided ful l administrative due process.

However, in view of the  foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of appl icant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief